| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
applicability |
|
|
Summary:
The fact that claimant did what a reasonable person would have done to inquire as to his rights and obligations under the Act (the "good cause" test in s. 9) is irrelevant in the context of what constitutes an interruption of earnings. No exception or justification allowed based on one's behaviour.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Employment reduced to 1 day a week. He could have scheduled his day of work in any given week so that there would have been 7 clear days for an interruption of earnings. Facts indistinguishable from GRANGER. He acted, so it seems, upon the erroneous understanding of the law by an agent of the Commission.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
7 days without work |
|
Summary:
By having started to work the Monday following the filing of his claim and every Monday thereafter, claimant, assuming that the reduction of his weekly hours of work could amount to a layoff, could still not qualify under ss. 37(1) which requires no earnings for at least seven consecutive days.
